MovieChat Forums > Doctor Who (2023) Discussion > Blacklisting

Blacklisting

posted 17 days ago by curiousMInd101 (256)
254 replies | jump to latest

Back in the 1950's, if you were a communist in the U.S., you were targeted and blacklisted. This meant that you got fired from your job, harassed, investigated, and driven out of polite society. We desperately need to bring this back. But instead of old school communists, we instead target the kinds of people who create shows like the new Doctor Who. Who take something that was good and vandalized it with their Woke bullshit. Some call these people "Woke", others called them "The left", others still call them "cultural Marxists". Whatever you want to call them, I believe we should start making blacklists and start circling them around and put pressure on industries to purge these people from all spaces.
These people should not be allowed to work in the entertainment industry. Or any industry for that matter. These people really shouldn't be allowed to work anywhere, except maybe bagging groceries or working at gas stations. They are a detriment to society. If we don't stop them, they will continue to destroy our culture and undermine all of our cultural and social norms.

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago


Doctor Who is British.

Happily, the USA has no jurisdiction over who can and cannot work in the British entertainment industry. If you want to return to McCarthyism in your own country, then try that. But return to isolationist policies too: keep your beak out.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

No, I want it world wide. Every Wokester, everywhere. A complete global crackdown on everyone with a woke ideology. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. A complete worldwide purge.

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago


Well. Too bad.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Too bad for the Wokes.

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago

Well, that doesn't make any sense. But... OK, champ.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Don't worry. It will make sense.

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago

When you're king of the world?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

No. But there will come a leader (they always do) who will rally the masses (like in 1930's Germany) and cleanse the world of all the undesirables, and I will be there cheering him on.

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago

Ah, right, you're one of those cunts.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Yes, I'm one of those cunts.

reply
formatting help
[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1565) 6 days ago

I think it's more like, if we don't do something sensible now, then the situation flips from "far left nutjobs ruining everything" to "far right nutjobs ruining everything".

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 4 days ago

Right, but government policy issues is quite different than "fascist government because doctor whos lead is black" >=(

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

Sorry, have you just advanced your position into calling for mass murder?

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago

He's just openly declared himself a fascist. Which either means he's a fascist. Or he thinks it's edgy to pretend to be a fascist online. Either way, probably not worth bothering with.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

You were right the first time.

reply
formatting help
[–] raymondoz2007 (2079) 17 days ago

Stalin murdered more people

reply
formatting help
[–] capuchin (2747) 17 days ago

And you imagine this to be relevant in some way because...?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

I'm not calling for it, I just think it will happen and I will be cheering it on if it means that the Wokes will be gone.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

So you think I should be killed?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Are you Woke?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

I don't know. I like some purported 'woke' content (some of it). YMMV if its "woke".

Are you actually calling for the mass slaughter of people who are 'woke' (or judged to be so).

And the notion, the absolutely comedy and absurdity of thinking that "Poor content on Disney" means that people will vote in fascists is beyond a tiny worldview. People vote on the economy, on immigration, on housing. Not whats on Netflix or Disney - which the government does not control.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Then no. If that was the case then that would make me Woke too since I also watch or have watched some things that most would consider Woke.

And the notion, the absolutely comedy and absurdity of thinking that "Poor content on Disney" means that people will vote in fascists is beyond a tiny worldview. People vote on the economy, on immigration, on housing. Not whats on Netflix or Disney - which the government does not control.


I think you misunderstood me. Fascists will come to power precisely because of the economy, immigration, and housing. And once they are in power they will target the cultural left as they have always done. They will paint those who are on the cultural left, like the Wokes, as "undesirables". Those people will then be persecuted. Possibly rounded up and arrested. And maybe even slaughtered.
Now, If that were to happen, I would be there, standing in the crowd with a flag, cheering it on. Because a world where the Wokes are persecuted is a world that I want to live in.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

>I think you misunderstood me. Fascists will come to power precisely because of the economy, immigration, and housing. And once they are in power they will target the cultural left as they have always done. They will paint those who are on the cultural left, like the Wokes, as "undesirables". Those people will then be persecuted. Possibly rounded up and arrested. And maybe even slaughtered.

And you want that? You want to see people who belong to left-wing/progressive orientated creative cultures slaughtered by the state?

>Now, If that were to happen, I would be there, standing in the crowd with a flag, cheering it on. Because a world where the Wokes are persecuted is a world that I want to live in.

So you are a nasty hateful fascist piece of shit who wants to force your worldview onto people. You can't win in the free market, so you want to use violence and force it. You think people should be slaughtered just because they produce 'progressive' orientated media.

Yeah, I'm reporting all of your posts to the mods.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

So you want to run to the mods and censor my posts because you disagree with my views.
Sounds like you're a Rainbow Fascist.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

>So you want to run to the mods and censor my posts because you disagree with my views.

You're openly inciting violence.

And you want mass slaughter of your political enemies. If it was up to you, I wouldn't even be allowed by law to make these arguments. You have no grounds to accuse anyone of being fascist about anything.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Rainbow fascists are worse then regular fascists. So your argument is invalid.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

Based on what? I don't want to kill anyone. You do want to kill people. I'm just following what I believe to be the websites rules, which almost certainly forbids threatening violence.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

There are fates worse than death. I rather be killed by a fascist than live under Rainbow fascists.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

And what happens when you live "under rainbow fascists"? How does that impact your life negatively?

You think people who make entertainment you regard as 'woke' should die. That's beyond evil. Why should I, or anyone talk to you as anything less than a fascist piece of shit?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Living under rainbow fascists makes me wish I was dead.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

Not an answer: And what happens when you live "under rainbow fascists"? How does that impact your life negatively?

That you hate it, for whatever reason, doesn't justify killing other people. Progressives would hate living under a right-wing reactionary regime. Doesn't justify slaughtering right-wingers.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

If you say so.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

So no answer.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

What?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

You clearly have no response to my points.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Why?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

So back to you acting like a 10 year old.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Where?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

You have zero power to cause this.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Alone, that true. But I'm not alone.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

Except that there's tons of highly-rated, highly-watched 'woke' TV series: Bridgerton, Queen Charlotte, The Last of Us, Sex Education, Euphoria, Ginny & Georgia, Heartstopper.

There are essentially zero relevant examples of high quality, highly regarded social conservative programming.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Non Woke programming does not mean social conservative programming. It just means normal programming. Or at least what was considered normal just 10 years ago. That means no diversity, equity, inclusion. That means seeing less sexual and racial minorities on your screen and seeing more straight White people aka normal people.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

Okay.

There's still many shows constantly called "woke" that were massive hits in viewership and in many cases, audience acclaim.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

So what? All that means is that some people are willing to tolerate some wokeness if what they are watching is something that has other positive attributes. That doesn't mean that they like wokeness or want it. If something is really good, people watch despite it being woke not because of it.

If you magically made wokeness disappear, most people would be happier, except for a small group of degenerates who don't matter.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

>So what? All that means is that some people are willing to tolerate some wokeness if what they are watching is something that has other positive attributes.

And you are baselessly speculating that the 'woke' elements (or elements that you would call 'woke') alienated people in the first place. Take Bridgerton for instance. I would assume you'd regard it as inherently woke because it's set in a fictionalised 18th century Britain, but it has black members of the aristocracy.

But it's hard to know because I don't know where you consider 'woke' to begin.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Yes, I would consider Bridgerton very woke based on the trailers I've seen. But I've never watched it because I have no interest in seeing blacks in 18th century Britain. I don't even want to see them in 21st century Earth.

As for 'Woke', it just means anything that promotes the values of the Cultural Left. Specifically anything that has to do with Critical Social Justice. Bridgerton falls into this category because it is some half-assed attempt at racial justice through equity. It is an SJW wish fulfillment fantasy where blacks are portrayed as British aristocracy instead of a bunch of low IQ savages running around chucking spears at wild game on the African Savannah.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

>Yes, I would consider Bridgerton very woke based on the trailers I've seen. But I've never watched it because I have no interest in seeing blacks in 18th century Britain.

And yet its one of Netflixs best hits.

>I don't even want to see them in 21st century Earth.

So, what? Do you consider portraying black people as inherently woke?

>As for 'Woke', it just means anything that promotes the values of the Cultural Left. Specifically anything that has to do with Critical Social Justice. Bridgerton falls into this category because it is some half-assed attempt at racial justice through equity.

And yet its one of Netflixs most successful shows. And its core premise is 'woke'.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

The people who like that show don't matter.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

And why not?

And you didn't answer my question: Do you consider portraying black people as inherently woke?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Because we shouldn't concern ourselves with people who like things like Bridgerton. They have inferior taste and so should be excluded from the conversation.

And you didn't answer my question: Do you consider portraying black people as inherently woke?


No, not inherently. But today if a black person is portrayed it's probably because of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Which really means forced diversity. And forced diversity leads to diversity fatigue which leads to Black Fatigue. And if you suffer from Black Fatigue, naturally you're not going to want to see any blacks on your screen.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

>Because we shouldn't concern ourselves with people who like things like Bridgerton. They have inferior taste and so should be excluded from the conversation.

Netflix is a company out for making money. Your claim initially was that people are instinctively repulsed by 'woke' content. Bridgerton is one of Netflixs most successful TV series, and it is inherently woke. The premise is inherently woke. Companies will only stop commissioning TV series like that if they always fail. Now you've moved the goalposts.

There's no reason for any company to care about what is or isn't 'inferior taste'. Many people would consider people who seem to care about Doctor Who as having" "inferior taste", by the way. It's always been a family-friendly TV series. It's hardly high art.

>No, not inherently. But today if a black person is portrayed it's probably because of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

You said, specifically: "I don't even want to see them in 21st century Earth." They're integrated into many western countries now. I've seen plenty of TV series where they're just... regular people. They aren't glorified. They aren't pandered to. They're just regular characters.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Cool Story bro.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

So you have no argument whatsoever against my points.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Are you sure you're not autistic?
You do realize that you are the laughing stock of this board right?
No one takes you or what you say seriously. When they talk to you they are only fucking with you.

🌈⭐The more you know.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

The far-right bloc on here, half comprised of fascists don't like me. They're big in number because they've been banned from almost everywhere else and have nowhere else to go, but there are also other more 'usual' members on here who have no problem with me. I'll assume that you yourself have been banned given you're clearly using a new account.

Are you going to respond to my points, or continue to act like a child?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

You know, you bring up an interesting point. The far right bloc is banned almost everywhere. Which means that you don't actually ever get to hear what they have to say. You only hear a small portion from a small group of people who have somehow not yet been banned. I think you underestimate how many of them there are. Just because you don't see them and only hear from a few doesn't mean that they are not out there in large numbers, congregating on sites you never heard of. Millions of them. They even have their own parallel economies.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

They're banned usually, certainly in this case, for being abusive, insulting and inciting violence.

There are many right-wingers alienated from social media, but few of them are bloodthirsty would-be murderous fascists like yourself.

And with all of their "parallel economies" that you claim, they're unable to make good movie or TV series.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

And with all of their "parallel economies" that you claim, they're unable to make good movie or TV series.


They are not there yet, but they are getting there.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

They are nowhere near dude. Name me anything of note. It's actually pathetic.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

The one recent movie that comes to mind is Sound of Freedom (2023). I think that was done by conservatives for conservatives. I think it did well in the theaters. I never watched it but it has a pretty high rating on IMBD. (7.6/10)

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

So one movie. Grats.

Plenty of highly rated 'woke' content on IMDB by the way.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

ok.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

I guess those ratings don't matter though, right? Only things you like matter.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Now you're getting it.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

So why is that a convincing argument? Why should people ignore the good reputation for 'woke' shows but not the good reputation for the very occasional explicitly anti-woke, social conservative film?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Because I said so. That's why.
The real question is: If I spilled a box of matches all over the floor, would you be able to tell me how many matches I dropped?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

Why should anyone agree with something just because you say so?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Why not?
Can you tell me how many matches I dropped?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

Because no-one has any reason to take anything you say just on your supposed authority.

But back to you acting like a child.

You've completely moved the goalposts as well. You originally claimed that all woke content is hated, and now you've withdrawn that and say that it doesn't matter that it does.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Is that what happened?
Are you sure?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

Yes.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Well there you go then.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 15 days ago

I'm a moderate and think you're an absolute cunt, Skavau.

While I don't agree with the individual you argued with here, your attempt to bait his perspective for the purpose of reporting him so that he will be banned is contemptible and pathetic. If the fascists ever come to power, it will occur through the exact sort of suppression of expression that you champion all over these boards. You are truly one of the biggest pieces of shit here and if you got your way Moviechat would become another Reddit -like echo of opinionated fuckwads like yourself swallowing each others semen and/or vaginal fluid while flagging and banning anyone that diverges from the hive mind by not slurping the shit you secrete out of that bodily orifice you refer to as a mouth.

You are the enemy of what Moviechat and it's notion of uninhibited expression represents.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>While I don't agree with the individual you argued with here, your attempt to bait his perspective for the purpose of reporting him so that he will be banned is contemptible and pathetic.

I didn't need to bait anything. He came out and admitted that he's a fascist scumbag. If he had his way, he'd actually use the state to persecute me.

And specifically inciting violence is directly against the sites rules. Do you disagree with that?

> If the fascists ever come to power, it will occur through the exact sort of suppression of expression that you champion all over these boards.

They are already banned from most reputable forums. And that has nothing to do with me. Why should people put up with being told that they deserve to be killed? Which is what he thinks.

>You are truly one of the biggest pieces of shit here and if you got your way Moviechat would become another Reddit -like echo of opinionated fuckwads like yourself swallowing each others semen and/or vaginal fluid while flagging and banning anyone that diverges from the hive mind by not slurping the shit you secrete out of that bodily orifice you refer to as a mouth.

You mean it'd actually be a movie/tv forum and not overrun by schizoid psychopaths? The people you're defending here don't actually want a free forum as you describe by the way. They very much would like me banned.

There's a big gap between entertaining fascists and being a hive mind.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

You are wrong. I don't want you banned. I don't want anyone banned on this site. Whether you are a communist or a fascist or a disgusting queer tranny, I want you all here. I want to talk to you and argue with you. I want you all to show yourselves so everyone can see you. And I want everyone to see me too. I want them to be able to make up their own mind. I don't want some mod, and certainly not a censorious piece of shit like you, to make that decision for them.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

In your ideal world the state would censor me.

You don't want people banned on this website, but you do want them killed. That's much worse.

You have no right to complain about censorship about any kind when you want to kill people for making art you don't like. You are the biggest hater of free speech on this forum.

Fascist scumbag.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

I don't want to censor your speech. I want to round up the Wokes and punish them for their actions. For all their DEI policies that they've implemented. For silencing straight White people. For cancel culture. They are a detriment to society. They are the real enemies of free speech. By getting rid of them, you are actually affirming free speech. This is Popper's Paradox of Tolerance in action.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

>I don't want to censor your speech. I want to round up the Wokes and punish them for their actions

Their "actions" being the things they've said, and the work they've done, the tv shows and films they've made. You are full of shit.

>For all their DEI policies that they've implemented.

Just vote in representatives that will end that. You don't have to execute people for doing that.

>For silencing straight White people.

And how is that happening?

>For cancel culture.

What are you suggesting here? At its core "cancel culture" is simply the right of an organisation, a company, an individual to refuse to associate with someone. Are you suggesting clubs, and individuals and companies should be *forced* to associate with people?

This is also obviously hypocritical of you because in your opening post in this thread you argued in favour of cancel culture. Just for people you personally don't like.

>They are the real enemies of free speech.

No, I think the fascist piece of shit scumbag I'm talking to right now is the true enemy of free speech. You want to slaughter people for having the temerity to express values and ideals you don't like. You are the inhuman scumbag more at home in countries like China.

Fuckface.

>By getting rid of them, you are actually affirming free speech. This is Popper's Paradox of Tolerance in action.

You don't need to slaughter people to end DEI policies. You can just vote in new administrators to pass laws. "Cancel culture" in itself is a product of free speech: right to association. If you reject that, as you clearly do, then you are demonstrating again how much of an anti free-speech piece of shit you are.

You want to kill people. The 'paradox of tolerance' exists to warn of hateful fascist pieces of shit like yourself.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

LOL
You're constantly arguing against a straw man. And misrepresenting what I believe.
I don't want to slaughter anyone. I just want to round them up, arrest them, and expel them (The Wokes) from our countries. Or put them in work camps. Away from normal society. Where they can't do any damage.
All I said was that if they were slaughtered, the world would be a better place without them in it. But I'm not saying that we should slaughter them. Not because I care about them, but because it would be counter productive. There would be a backlash, and I don't want to turn them into martyrs.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

>You're constantly arguing against a straw man. And misrepresenting what I believe.

Name the strawman.

>I don't want to slaughter anyone. I just want to expel them (The Wokes) from our countries. Or put them in work camps. Away from normal society. Where they can't do any damage.

And you think that makes you look anything less like a piece of shit fascist? You want to exile people into hard labour because of their beliefs. Literal Nazi mentality.

>All I said was that if they were slaughtered, the world would be a better place without them in it.

And that you'd be cheering them on, like the bloodthirsty scumbag you are.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

Oh no, I am a fascist (at least by Woke standards). I just don't want to actually kill you. I just want to marginalize you.

But if all the Wokes were to magically disappear tomorrow, are you telling me the world wouldn't be a better place?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

>Oh no, I am a fascist (at least by Woke standards).

No, you're a piece of shit fascist by any standards.

> I just don't want to actually kill you. I just want to marginalize you.

Meaning what? You just spoke of work camps.

>But if all the Wokes were to magically disappear tomorrow, are you telling me the world wouldn't be a better place?

No, it would not. No reason to think it would.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

No, you're a piece of shit fascist by any standards

Nah, I'm based as fuck. I look very handsome in my Nazi uniform.
Meaning what? You just spoke of work camps.

Already explained it to you. It could be anything from turning Wokes into social pariahs, to expulsion from the country, to being put in an internment camp or a work camp. In your case, I would go with turning you into a social pariah. I simply want to do what you want to do to me. I want everyone to remind you what a subhuman piece of shit you are everywhere you go.

And yes stupid, the world would be a better place without the Wokes in it. This should be obvious to anyone. This is self evident. The only people who would disagree would be the Wokes themselves. But they don't matter. Their feelings don't matter. Their opinions don't matter.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

>Nah, I'm based as fuck. I look very handsome in my Nazi uniform.

Cute.

>Already explained it to you. It could be anything from turning Wokes into social pariahs, to expulsion from the country, to being put in an internment camp or a work camp. In your case, I would go with turning you into a social pariah. I simply want to do what you want to do to me. I want everyone to remind you what a subhuman piece of shit you are everywhere you go.

How did I turn you into a social pariah? What makes me "subhuman"? What makes you a hateful piece of shit is the violent and authoritarian rhetoric you say. You won't be able to come up with anything equivalent that you can attribute to me.

>And yes stupid, the world would be a better place without the Wokes in it. This should be obvious to anyone. This is self evident. The only people who would disagree would be the Wokes themselves. But they don't matter. Their feelings don't matter. Their opinions don't matter.

There's no reason to believe your premise here.

So there we go then. Your definition of woke slowly changes into "anyone who disagrees with me". And until then all liberals and libertarians suddenly become "woke". By the way, one could say that if you could snap your finger and disappeared all fascists then the world would be better.

And you may not care about the "wokes" opinion. But "woke" people vote. They watch TV shows and films and they very much matter to Netflix and Amazon and whoever else.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

>Nah, I'm based as fuck. I look very handsome in my Nazi uniform.

Cute.

Are you hitting on me? I'm not interested.
So there we go then. Your definition of woke slowly changes into "anyone who disagrees with me". And until then all liberals and libertarians suddenly become "woke". By the way, one could say that if you could snap your finger and disappeared all fascists then the world would be better.

No, I already gave you my definition of Woke. It refers to the Cultural Left, specifically those who promote Critical Social Justice.
And yes, if fascists disappeared the world would be a better place for the Wokes. But they don't matter. So...


reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

>No, I already gave you my definition of Woke. It refers to the Cultural Left, specifically those who promote Critical Social Justice.

You just said that anyone who disagrees with your claim that all 'woke' people disappearing would improve the world must, themselves, be woke. And thus subject to the same punitive restrictions you wish to impose on people.

>And yes, if fascists disappeared the world would be a better place for the Wokes. But they don't matter. So...

No, they'd be better for everyone. And there's no reason to believe that "wokes (or any social group) doesn't matter.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 13 days ago

You just said that anyone who disagrees with your claim that all 'woke' people disappearing would improve the world must, themselves, be woke. And thus subject to the same punitive restrictions you wish to impose on people.

Are you now admitting that you're Woke?
Think carefully before you answer. This will be used as evidence in your trial. Maybe the best course of action is to tread lightly.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

>Are you now admitting that you're Woke?

I said no such thing. I was following the paper trail of your logic. You claim to confine 'woke' to a narrow term of reference, but then suggest that anyone who disagrees with you that they are harmful must therefore themselves be 'woke'.

You are basically contradicting yourself.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

Well, if only Wokes think that the world is better place with them in it, and you think that the world is a better place with them in it, then that would make you woke.
Sounds like someone really wants to catch a train to camp.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I didn't say "better". Just that its not necessarily worse. As a matter of rule, I don't think removing any group would be good. I'm for civil liberties. I know you hate freedom and that you can't win without arming the state to force a 'win'.

And you haven't given a concrete definition of what 'woke' is. "Cultural left" is another vague concept.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

Stop being obtuse.
The cultural left focuses on pushing for progressive social changes like diversity, inclusion, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and social justice. They challenge traditional norms and want a more equal and inclusive society.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

The "cultural left" is not, and never was a monolith.

There's nothing inherently wrong about LGBT rights. What rights should be taken away from LGBT people, exactly? Why would that be inherently woke? Do some leftists, (or progressives, more accurately) argue for stupid legislation in aid of that? Sure.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with gender equality. What do you dispute there?

What traditional norms are the left challenging, exactly?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

You're being obtuse on purpose.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

Answer my questions.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

LOL

aNsWeR mY qUeStIoNs herp a derp

Fuck you you entitled twat.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

Not an answer. I'll repeat:

The "cultural left" is not, and never was a monolith.

There's nothing inherently wrong about LGBT rights. What rights should be taken away from LGBT people, exactly? Why would that be inherently woke? Do some leftists, (or progressives, more accurately) argue for stupid legislation in aid of that? Sure.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with gender equality. What do you dispute there?

What traditional norms are the left challenging, exactly?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

Well that's the only answer you're going to get. The only answer you're entitled to.
Now shoo! Get out of here! Go on!! Git!! Git!!

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I'll do whatever the fuck I like.

Answer my questions.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

Calm down. You are having an autistic momemnt. Settle down before we have to confine you.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

Back to behaving like a kid again, I see

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

'll do whatever the fuck I like.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

Footnote* Trans people are six times more likely to be autistic than the general population, therefore Skavau is six times more likely to be autistic than not.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/15/1149318664/transgender-and-non-binary-people-are-up-to-six-times-more-likely-to-have-autism#:~:text=Weekend%20Edition%20Sunday-,Transgender%20and%20nonbinary%20people%20are%20up%20to%20six%20times%20more,how%20society%20views%20these%20identities.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I'm not trans or autistic. But I'm sure that won't stop you spreading baseless accusations about me.

But you're the good guy, right?

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

Do you go from he to she depending on the day of the week? I'm confused.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

"Anyone bad must be trans" mentality. I can feel the supposed moderate energy eminating from you.

Are you going to now devote your entire life to harassing me on the forum just like Melton did?

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

Who are you quoting there?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I'll answer you if you answer me.

You can also answer this if you like: Why don't you just put me on ignore?

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

That's ironic of you to say, given that I asked the first question here, don't you think?

It's like rain on your trans wedding day.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

An obvious bad faith question that is immediately invalidated by the fact that I denied the premise of your question in the first place.

I refuse to answer anything until you answer my questions.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

If my questions are in bad faith, does that mean that yours are in good faith? I'm getting confused again.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I refuse to answer anything until you answer my questions.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

If I play by your rules, do I get to pick which question I answer as well as the question that you will answer in return?

Or is answering that included in your assertion that you won't answer any of my questions?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I'm not going to answer any obvious bullshit questions that are built on the assumption that I'm trans. I've already said I'm not trans. It's obviously just you being a troll.

If you have an actual genuine question, I'll answer it, if it's more baseless petty attempts at trying to chastise me, I won't.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

I sense some hostility here regarding the implication that you might be trans. Can you elaborate on where that resentment is coming from?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I refuse to answer anything until you answer my questions.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

Do I have to answer all of your questions before you'll answer one of mine? That seems a bit slanted.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 12 days ago

I refuse to answer anything until you answer my questions.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 12 days ago

I don't like the rules of this game very much.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 12 days ago

Maybe she'll join the 41% club.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

And have you got nothing to say about the murderous psychopath who made this thread other than "I don't agree"?

Isn't me expressing how I feel part of this "free speech" compact you value so much here?

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 15 days ago

You think you're clever with these entry level, sophistic debate tactics but you really aren't.

So you don't promote violence, as you claimed above? Weren't you proudly claiming previously that you'd report neighbors to some sort of gestapo like entity for violating state policies? In such a context do you believe the result is going to be limited to a stern talking to? Of course not; you were advocating for state sanctioned violence.

But hey, go ahead and describe how you saying that is perfectly acceptable while the hypothetical that the OP here presented should be a ban worthy offense. I can already anticipate the asinine flood of questions you'll start with as a defense to that.

And back to what started this exchange: you are a pathetic cunt for going about that discussion as you did; you're nothing more than the little bitch kid in class trying to get people "in trouble" for saying things you don't like.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>You think you're clever with these entry level, sophitic debate tactics but you really aren't.

More whining.

>So you don't promote violence, as you claimed above? Weren't you proudly claiming previously thst you'd report neighbors to some sort of gestapo like entity for violating state policie? In such a context do you think in that context the result is going to be limited to a stern talking to?

No, I said no such thing. I said that someone who openly talks about how all politicians should be slaughtered should probably be on a watchlist. This is something all democratic governments have to potential terrorists. If someone did tell you though that they are planning to assassinate a politician or an activist, would you report them?

>But hey, go ahead and describe how you saying that is perfectly acceptable while the hypothetical btyat the OP here oresented should be a ban worthy offense. I can already anticipate the asinine flood if questions you'llbstsrt with asva defense to that.

You think there's no difference between reporting a potential terrorist and someone actually expressing open support for mass slaughter of political opposition?

>And back to what started this exchange: you are a pathetic cunt for going about the exchange as you did; you're nothing more than the little butch kid in class trying to get people "in trouble" for saying things you don't like.

I didn't have to get him or prompt him to do anything. He came out and said that he was a murderous psychopathic fascist.

And since this is supposedly a free speech zone, why you mad bro?

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 15 days ago

This is one of the closest approximations to a free speech zone out there, that's why I'm calling you as a sophistic cunt instead of bragging about how I'm going to report you for shit on this thread like your "midget" insult post.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

My midget insult post? You mean where I called Nerdrotic a mental midget?

Insulting isn't against the rules here. I've never reported anyone for insulting.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 15 days ago

That post was purely an insult, contributed nothing to the discussion and contained a derogatory term that references a physiological condition in a negative way.

Keep digging yourself deeper though and maybe you'll reach a low that will enable you to comprehend why it isn't just the far right members of this website that have disdain for you.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>That post was purely an insult, contributed nothing to the discussion and contained a derogatory term that references a physiological condition in a negative way.

It's just calling his brain small. It's not that deep. People insult Biden and Trump on here all the time flippantly. Also clearly not remotely against moviechat rules.

Don't try to woke me dude. I don't consider myself woke.

>Keep digging yourself deeper though and maybe you'll reach a low that will enable you to comprehend why it isn't just the far right members of this website that have disdain for you.

It is primarily the far-right members. You claim to be a centrist. No idea. Tim Pool claims to be a centrist.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 15 days ago

The entirety of your post read:

"Nerdrotic is a mental midget who has thinks entertainment begins and ends with Disney."

That post is clearly a violation of Community Standard Section 2 and Prohibited Content Section 4.

You're conflating me stating that I'm a moderate into a claim that I'm a centrist. Tim Pool has nothing to do with this conversation, dipshit. That you display such a lack of reading comprehension comes as no surprise though.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>The entirety of your post read:

>That post is clearly a violation of Community Standard Section 2 and Prohibited Content Section 4.

Completely unenforced. People insult each other all the time on here. I can only go by historical precedent on here. There are a few things that seem to prompt potential moderator response.

Literally most of the forum would be banned by that rule if it was even remotely enforced.

>You're conflating me stating that I'm a moderate into a claim that I'm a centrist. Tim Pool has nothing to do with this conversation, dipshit. That you display such a lack of reading comprehension comes as no surprise though.

Tim Pool also claims that he's a moderate. I don't know enough about your political views other than you sit with indifference as all the fascists on this forum spew bile all over everything. Doesn't seem remotely moderate to me.

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 15 days ago

"Also clearly not remotely against moviechat rules."

Oh, now it isn't that it isn't against the rules, it's just that it isn't enforced? Getting a little shifty, aren't we?

Same thing with the Tim Pool reference; you described him, and me, as a centrist but now you're going on about how Tim Pool is a moderate, as if it somehow has anything to do with this thread?

Now I'm guilty of some sort of ethical omission for not getting into a verbal duel with someone over their political beliefs? So this is the part where you try to put me on the defensive, right?

The thing is, I already said I don't agree with his views. That is also irrelevant to the post of mine you responded to. What makes you the cunt here is you pushing someone to expand upon their political views and then gloating how you're going to report them over it. All of this deflection you're mustering up now doesn't change that.

Now that the conversation has gone full circle, to how you're pathetic and spiteful cunt for playing this "getting you in trouble" routine, that is, there's nothing left to say. I'm aware that you'll keep posting your drivel, shifting your meaning, deflecting and what ever else suits your ego at the time as you try to be "right" but instead come across as the cunt you truly are.

Until next time, dipshit.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>Oh, now it isn't that it isn't against the rules, it's just that it isn't enforced? Getting a little shifty, aren't we?

I mean it's written there, but the mods openly refuse to enforce it.

>Same thing with the Tim Pool reference; you described him, and me, as a centrist but now you're going on about how Tim Pool is a moderate, as if it somehow has anything to do with this thread?

I don't know what the distinction is in your mind here. We're using two different terms in different ways.

>Now I'm guilty of some sort of ethical omission for not getting into a verbal duel with someone over their political beliefs? So this is the part where you try to put me on the defensive, right?

I didn't say you were guilty, just that you don't seem at all bothered by all the fascists that infest this forum.

>The thing is, I already said I don't agree with his views. That is also irrelevant to the post of mine you responded to here. What makes you a cunt here is you pushing someone to expand upon their political views and then gloating how you're going to report them over it. All of this deflection you're mustering up now doesn't change that.

Sure. You have said that.

I didn't push him to do anything. He admitted he was a fascist. Came right out and said it.

I freely admit though to goading what people really think from their mind, to let them lay out how nasty they are and who they want to persecute though.

reply
formatting help
[–] Melton (2604) 10 days ago

I'm a moderate and think you're an absolute cunt, Skavau.

While I don't agree with the individual you argued with here, your attempt to bait his perspective for the purpose of reporting him so that he will be banned is contemptible and pathetic. If the fascists ever come to power, it will occur through the exact sort of suppression of expression that you champion all over these boards. You are truly one of the biggest pieces of shit here and if you got your way Moviechat would become another Reddit -like echo of opinionated fuckwads like yourself swallowing each others semen and/or vaginal fluid while flagging and banning anyone that diverges from the hive mind by not slurping the shit you secrete out of that bodily orifice you refer to as a mouth.

You are the enemy of what Moviechat and it's notion of uninhibited expression represents.

This needs framing. The unvarnished truth, beautifully expressed 🤌🏻

Skavau is a completely busted flush on this site, everyone’s on to his evil agenda and dirty tactics.

reply
formatting help
[–] Corbell (9126) 10 days ago

Agreed.

AND, it's important to note, this is not unusual activity. I've seen it on several other sites. Quite a number of lefty trolls, make this their life's mission.

Skavau is not alone. He is part of a movement. A serious and very dangerous movement.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 10 days ago

What "movement" am I supposedly a part of?

Imagine being such a precious little princess that you're terrified of people asking you questions on like.

What a crybully snowflake you are.

Fuckface.

reply
formatting help
[–] Corbell (9126) 9 days ago

Aw, look at the little troll boi cuck playing stupid.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 9 days ago

No answer. Will repeat: What "movement" am I supposedly a part of?

reply
formatting help
[–] Corbell (9126) 9 days ago

I'm not interesting in play troll boi games. YOu got something real to say, say it.

Else fuck off.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 9 days ago

I'll do what the fuck I like. You again threw allegations at me: What "movement" am I supposedly a part of?

reply
formatting help
[–] SemiAnimus (1031) 10 days ago

He has it coming. Though not as deranged as the likes of Keelai, Skavau is the most obnoxious user on these boards. Openly bragging about baiting political views for the purpose of reporting and banning those who hold them places him firmly into outcast scum territory.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 10 days ago

What am I supposedly bragging about?

I absolutely bait fascists into revealing their true murderous intentions. I make no excuses for that. Why should I? Why should authoritarian scumbags hide by smoke and mirrors and not tell us what they really want?

I'm sometimes accused of asking questions rather than outlining my positions, but the neo-fascists on here claim its "baiting" when I somehow manipulate them into revealing their support for state sanctioned persecution and murder.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 10 days ago

He's not a moderate. I simply don't believe him. He's a fake moderate in the same sense as Tim Pool.

reply
formatting help
[–] Melton (2604) 10 days ago

As a radical wokist who censors those who call out your shit, it’s no surprise to see you trying to brand genuine moderates like SemiAnimus and Tim Pool as extremists.

Needless to say, you’re convincing nobody.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 10 days ago

>As a radical wokist who censors those who call out your shit, it’s no surprise to see you trying to brand genuine moderates like SemiAnimus and Tim Pool as extremists.

What remotely is moderate about Tim Pool lmao? He's a mid 30's incel.

https://i.redd.it/z02pg0id8k4c1.jpg

https://preview.redd.it/ll15ev18kdvc1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=736a477adc3faef1b46670e4380f830e0de67412 (this one is pathetic)

https://preview.redd.it/d6xv63wen80d1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=e78ef66494ffc13a427fe2139c5d86e32cbbef10

https://preview.redd.it/bm0ulpkirn0b1.jpg?auto=webp&s=44503cd117a762c339103639bd766301dd441921

https://x.com/pimtoolnews/status/1659369441631813632?t=-8I3Qxl-Ex3ebpDzg7jL3g

https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/14pvp8q/tim_pools_antisex_crusade_has_now_evolved_to_the/

https://v.redd.it/ksl56w5l7ksc1

Also, I have never reported anyone who criticised, but purely reported people for lobbing libellous accusations.

reply
formatting help
[–] Melton (2604) 10 days ago

Listen to Pool and you’ll know exactly how moderate he is, clearly you don’t because you’ve described him as an incel when he has a long term gf. Get a clue before commenting.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 10 days ago

Those are direct quotes from him. What is at all moderate about those views?

He's also hardly an intelligent political thinker.

https://preview.redd.it/pi6nyimlq7891.jpg?auto=webp&s=4093c1530ae4aa1b163df7f857290877b1552866

reply
formatting help
[–] Melton (2604) 10 days ago

I don’t need your curated version of Tim Pool. I’ve listened to him for myself and he’s a very reasonable and moderate commentator.

You’re a demented radical Leftist and your attempts to paint Pool as an extremist are desperate, unconvincing and pathetic.

Now fart out another mindless response which ignores the fact that you’ve been outed as an obnoxious bullshitter with zero credibility. Go…

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 10 days ago

>I don’t need your curated version of Tim Pool. I’ve listened to him for myself and he’s a very reasonable and moderate commentator.

I can keep posting more and more examples. How many become a representative sample?

That you think he's a "reasonable and moderate commentator" is laughable. Also I didn't call him an extremist, but simply that he's not remotely moderate.

And how am I a radical leftist?

>Now fart out another mindless response which ignores the fact that you’ve been outed as an obnoxious bullshitter with zero credibility. Go…

Straight back to your childish post editing.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (990) 15 days ago

And this is the point.

The people who claim to be anti woke often say agenda shouldn't be pushed and talk about box ticking but what they actually want is no diversity, they just don't want to admit to being racist etc.

You said it yourself, you don't want to see any blacks. I may never agree with the anti woke points but I'd respect them more if they where honest. It's not forced diversity that's the issue it's any inclusion.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

I hope you're not talking about me. I am explicitly saying that I don't want diversity. And yes, I am a racist. At this point I see it as a badge of honor. I like racists. In a world that has gone woke, they are the real persecuted minority, so I root for them.

The interesting question is how did I reach this point? I wasn't always like this. I wasn't like this even a few years ago. It was forced diversity and box ticking that got me to this point. Before forced diversity, some diversity was tolerable. But once it became forced, and you couldn't get away from it, you develop diversity fatigue. And so now, I don't want to see any diversity. None. Just straight White people.
Maybe if I see more of that, my diversity fatigue will subside and I'll be able to tolerate some of it. Until then, I'm going to continue being a racist and a nazi and transphobe and homophobe and an ableist and a misogynist and a fascist.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>I hope you're not talking about me. I am explicitly saying that I don't want diversity. And yes, I am a racist. At this point I see it as a badge of honor. I like racists. In a world that has gone woke, they are the real persecuted minority, so I root for them.

Yeah, you're a hateful murderous fascist piece of shit. I'll never cease noting this.

>The interesting question is how did I reach this point? I wasn't always like this. I wasn't like this even a few years ago. It was forced diversity and box ticking that got me to this point. Before forced diversity, some diversity was tolerable. But once it became forced, and you couldn't get away from it, you develop diversity fatigue. And so now, I don't want to see any diversity. None. Just straight White people.

Imagine being such a whiny and delicate piece of shit that seeing LGBT people and black people in media makes you into a murderous fascist.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

Are you triggered?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Not as triggered as the person who apparently goes into a blood rage because you see too many LGBT and black people on TV and in film. That's the peak of snowflakery.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

Why does that bother you?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

People who call for the murder of others tend to bother me, as it should bother anyone.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

People who are Woke bother me, as it should bother anyone.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

And someone bothering you doesn't give you the right to murder them.

Scumbag

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

Why U mad bro?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Because you want to murder people. You have also failed to explain how someone doing something, and you not liking it is somehow equivalent to you wanting to slaughter them for it.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

Do you feel I owe you an explanation?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

I don't care. But so long as you make that false equivalence, I will continue to point out the dumbassery of it and challenge you on it.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

Do what you gotta do I guess.

reply
formatting help
[–] Kowalski (61907) 17 days ago

I CALL WOKE FAKE...AND IF IT'S REAL I AM ALL GOOD WITH IT....GOOD LUCK CRACKING DOWN ON ME.🙂

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Don't worry. People in high places are looking out for you. You'll get a pass.

reply
formatting help
[–] Kowalski (61907) 17 days ago

COOL.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

Only way you're gonna do that is if you had supernatural powers and several armies of invisible assassin robots at your beck and call. Robots that can sense people who are Woke, which would be quite a feat in and of itself.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

How did they do it to the communists in the 1950's? People simply created an atmosphere that was unwelcoming to communists. People refused to want to be seen with them. People refused to work with them. The government would investigate them and harass them. It just requires normal people (anti-Woke people) to create that atmosphere. To go from passive observers who tolerate this nonsense to people who actively speak up against it. Who make life difficult for anyone who is woke. Who use the same social pressure that the Wokes now use, against them, in the real world, with real consequences.
What this means for you is to be active. When you encounter these people in your day to day or in your work you have to make it clear that their ideology is not welcome. By doing this you are putting pressure on them. At first, the effect is minimal. But if more and more people started doing it, the force becomes overwhelming. And the targets will start to retreat. Keep their head down. They will be feel marginalized because they will be marginalized.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

That's what they started doing to us on the Right back in 2016, making things very unwelcoming to us, and treating us like crap online, driving us away from social media, firing us for using the wrong pronouns, attacking anyone who even slightly disagreed with the gay agenda, things like that. It got so bad they even went after Centrists, the cornerstone of entertainment. One reason entertainment was okay before this was because the people in charge had a balance of power between the two ideologies. Then the older centrists in charge retired, and the woke nutjobs took over.

The problem is, the wokies are highly organized and well-connected, and the rest of the sane people are not. It's bizarre, seeing conservatives as the "radical" ones these days. I mean, how are the sane people supposed to get organized if the woketards are monitoring everything?

Although, that news about the Jews freaking out at being targeted as "white" by the woke mob and changing their tune might help. I guess it must suck to find out you're not a "protected class" anymore.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

You got it. That is exactly right. I was going to write the same thing but didn't want to make the post too long. But yes, it's what they have been doing to the Right for the last 10 years. They have marginalized you (I say "you" because I've only recently moved to the [far] right, and only on cultural issues and not economics, so it still feels weird to call myself Right wing) and made you feel isolated where your voice and opinions didn't matter. They made you feel like you are the crazy one for not agreeing with their ideology. This is what we have to do to them. And like them, as you correctly pointed out, we must organize. We must speak with one loud voice. It must come from all directions. If we do this, we can drive these lunatics back to the shadows where they belong.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

So you only recently became a murderous fascist psychopath?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

What?

reply
formatting help
[–] parkerbot (5969) 17 days ago

The market will weed trash out.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 17 days ago

Unfortunately the market no longer works. It evolves into the kind of capitalism we have today, which is no better than communism. In fact, economically speaking, communism works probably even better than what we have. Our current phase of capitalism has destroyed the market. If the market worked, companies like Disney, would lose money and course correct. But they refuse to do so, because they no longer operate like a normal business in a free market. They are essentially a monopoly and they act like it. All we can do now is refuse to do business with them and try to bleed them out until they fail so hard that investors pull all their money.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 17 days ago

Disney is not remotely a monopoly. In TV terms there's Netflix, Apple, Amazon, HBO/Max, Peacock, Paramount and many others all producing arguably superior content (unless you like kiddy content). There's national broadcasters. There's smaller services like Britbox, Viaplay. There's Chinese streaming services. There's Indian streaming services. There's Korean streaming services.

reply
formatting help
[–] Guitar King (4479) 17 days ago

Get the hell off this board, corporate shill. You don't watch Doctor Who, so piss off.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Poor Skavau can't go anywhere without being called out.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

I notice no answer to the point that you don't have to watch Disney. Watch other things.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Why are replying to me?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

Read up the thread.

You originally claimed that Disney is a monopoly. It just isn't. No-one makes you watch the MCU, or Star Wars, or their franchise remakes. In TV terms there's Netflix, Apple, Amazon, HBO/Max, Peacock, Paramount and many others all producing arguably superior content (unless you like kiddy content). There's national broadcasters. There's smaller services like Britbox, Viaplay. There's Chinese streaming services. There's Indian streaming services. There's Korean streaming services.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Is that what I claimed?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

"Our current phase of capitalism has destroyed the market. If the market worked, companies like Disney, would lose money and course correct. But they refuse to do so, because they no longer operate like a normal business in a free market. They are essentially a monopoly and they act like it."

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Based.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

But they're not a monopoly. Going to address the fact that you can easily avoid Disney content if you so choose?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

I'll do what ever I like, and without your permission.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

If you watch YouTube channels such as "Clownfish TV," "WDW Pro," and "That Park Place," you'll hear a lot about it. Investors are absolutely PISSED at Bob Iger right now. It got even worse after an attempt to oust him failed (he cheated in the voting, of course). Disney stocks are looking really bad right now.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

I've never heard of those YouTube channels. But I have watched some Nerdrotic videos that talk about the same thing.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Nerdrotic the manchild who complains about modern TV/film all the while having the media depth of a potato.

Maybe if he watched something other than capeshit and the MCU he'd find something else. It's not modern medias fault he has the tastes of a child.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

You watch Nerdrotic too?! Oh cool! I love that guy! His ability to snark is awesome! The Friday Night Tights and Real BBC are fun to listen to, and the Forbidden Frontier stuff is fascinating, if somewhat weird and questionable.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

It's funny, I used to watch Gary back in the day when he first started. His YouTube channel had like a thousand subscribers. He's got over a million today. Who would have thought.
He used to do review videos for TV shows back then with his co-host Dennis. This was back before everything went Woke.
It was fun times. Then things started to go woke. Gary changed, and his channel became all about criticizing Wokeness. This turned me off and I stopped watching him. Back then, I didn't "see" it yet. I thought to myself "Why does this guy constantly talk about this stuff?" or "If it bothers him so much, why doesn't he just watch something else?". Then a year later, I started to see it too. Now I understood. Once you spot the pattern it really becomes suffocating. And it doesn't stop. You can't get away from it. It's everywhere.
Still though, I mostly stayed away from his channel because he started bringing up his libertarian politics and it bothered me.
These days, I will catch a video here and there, or watch a bit of his FNT streams. I don't watch often because he covers the same 3 shows over and over, shows that I have no interest in watching anyway. Or he talks about Disney. But I do enjoy watching him making fun of Hollywood.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

I first came across him and other channels back in 2017, when I was still feeling miserable about how movies and tv shows had gone downhill, particularly after "The Last Jedi" and "Star Trek: Shitscovery" came out. I looked online and wondered if others felt the same way. Turns out, not only did they feel that way too, but there are many of them, and they are even revealing shocking information I didn't know about.

Gary only got a million viewers because he was competing with Dan Vasc in a contest recently. And you're the second person I've read that wrote something similar to Gary's youtube history, how he was different before the Woke Era. To be frank, we were all different before the Woke Era.

Who is Dennis?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

Yeah, Gary was completely different. Well, I guess not completely, but he had a more positive vibe about him. He wasn't jaded. He rarely complained about anything. He was always trying to create a very positive vibe. Even when he didn't like something he was very gentle with his criticism. When the woke cancer started to corrupt our culture it really fucked him up. It was weird watching it from the outside but once you're inside and experience it for yourself it makes perfect sense. You get jaded.

As for Dennis, he and Gary did a podcast together reviewing episodes of shows.
Here is an old video of Dennis Bithoulkas and Gary doing an episode review of Legion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sksScoAg5Fg

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Nerdrotic is a mental midget who has thinks entertainment begins and ends with Disney.

reply
formatting help
[–] raymondoz2007 (2079) 17 days ago

YES

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 16 days ago

Keep in mind that the woke nonsense is been pushed from the very top starting with BlacRock, Vanguard and state street.

They push those policies on corporations and organizations.

The biggest problem is the head of the snake.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

Originally it came from academia. Then in 2011, Obama signed an executive order that implemented Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion all throughout the government.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ
After that, the corporate world followed. Once investment companies like BlackRock implemented it it, they forced it downstream to everyone else. Good news is that BlackRock is slowly moving away from DEI and hopefully more companies will follow.

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 16 days ago

Originally, all that came from Babylonian doctrines.

All woke, transgenderism/transhumanism comes from the Talmud/Zohar.

The owners and controllers at the top follow those doctrines and it still would have been pushed without Obama.

I don't see any signs of them moving away from it. It will suddenly stop or continue until someone stops them.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

A complete load of unevidenced horseshit.

>I don't see any signs of them moving away from it. It will suddenly stop or continue until someone stops them.

Until "someone stops them"? What are you calling for? Are you suggesting people should be prevented, by force, from depicting 'woke' or transgender-themed content in tv, film and video games?

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 16 days ago

I don't see any signs of them moving away from it. It will suddenly stop or continue until someone stops them.

Before the Oct 7th attacks on Israel, Jews had assumed that they were just another oppressed minority like the gays and the blacks, so they supported all this woke anti-White DEI bullshit. But after Israel's genocidal response, all these woke activists turned on Jews, and they discovered, to their horror, that they are also considered White and therefore are the oppressors. As a result, many of them started to turn against DEI and Wokeism. People like Bill Ackman who is a wealthy hedge fund manager and a supporter of DEI, all of the sudden started publicly speaking out against it. Then other powerful people started to speak up and all of the sudden companies started to change their position on DEI. I don't remember the source, but I remember reading about BlackRock questioning their DEI policies around this time.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

Just one more reason I would have loved to have gone back in time and made sure to arrange a fatal "accident" for him when he was snorting coke in "college."

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Least psychopathic moviechat commentator.

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 15 days ago

Did you know that Obama’s CIA handlers murdered 3 of his ex gay lovers within a six week period in 2007 when he was preparing to run for president?

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Evidence please

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

Wow, three? I thought it was just Larry Sinclair. I knew Michelle was a beard. Rumor has it, Malia and Sasha aren't even his daughters!

And yeah, the CIA handler thing makes total sense. In fact, that dipshit wouldn't have gotten anywhere in the presidential election of 2008 without someone pulling strings, because he was a complete unknown. It just lends more credence that a lot of elections are more rigged than we've been led to believe.

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 15 days ago

Larry was not part of the three, he recently confirmed most that info in a Tucker interview last year.

Obama and his entire family are frauds and Deep State plants.

Both girls are from another couple.

The military knew everything about Obama and they were going to oust/stage a coup against him but decided that our country would never recover and that it was best to do things according to law/order and the Constitution by convincing Trump to run for president.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>Larry was not part of the three, he recently confirmed most that info in a Tucker interview last year.

Was there the slightest shred of evidence presented in this interview or was it Tucker just interviews a complete psychopath and takes, without question, his bullshit as true?

>Both girls are from another couple.

Evidence please.

>The military knew everything about Obama and they were going to oust/stage a coup against him but decided that our country would never recover and that it was best to do things according to law/order and the Constitution by convincing Trump to run for president.

Evidence please.

And I love how the military supposedly knew this, managed to somehow get Trump to run for President but then watched as this election was supposedly rigged and then did nothing.

This has to be amongst one of the most dumbass bullshit nonsensical claims you've ever made.

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 15 days ago

All Facts.

but then watched as this election was supposedly rigged and then did nothing.

They allowed it to happen so they can indict, prosecute and convict everyone involved.
You don’t interrupt criminals when they are making mistakes.

The ballots were marked and tracked.

The military has all the evidence of the rigging and cheating including video footage.

Trump was stripped of his presidential powers on J6 and the military took over and we have been in a COG.

All this can be verified on our government websites via eleven executive orders, 50 USC-1550, 1621 and 10 USC-12302, 12304, 12406.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>All Facts.

Calling them facts doesn't make them facts. Back them up.

>They allowed it to happen so they can indict, prosecute and convict everyone involved.
You don’t interrupt criminals when they are making mistakes.

This genuinely braindead. If it was obviously criminal at the time, and the military had already picked Trump (so you claim) and they saw it was being overturned illegally - why didn't they just stop it then? Why would they tolerate 8 years of Obama, and then apparently tolerate 4 years of Biden? This concept just makes no sense.

>The military has all the evidence of the rigging and cheating including video footage.

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for this completely baseless claim?

>Trump was stripped of his presidential powers on J6 and the military took over and we have been in a COG.

So the military, who apparently backed Trump, then decided to strip him of his powers, in an election they knew was fraudulent? I can't even parse this absurd logic.

>All this can be verified on our government websites via eleven executive orders, 50 USC-1550, 1621 and 10 USC-12302, 12304, 12406.

How do any of these relate to anything relevant about your batshit claims about Obama?

Where is your evidence that Obamas kids are not his? Where is your evidence that he had three gay lovers? Where is your evidence that the military supposedly knew this about Obama? Where is your evidence that the military urged Trump to run?

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 15 days ago

It was allowed so that our country realizes how bad things would get under Biden; otherwise, there would have been a "civil war" and our country destroyed.

It’s not enough to tell people, they have to be shown and they have to experience it.

Biden is a puppet president serving a puppet state. His inauguration was actually a military funeral.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>It was allowed so that our country realizes how bad things would get under Biden; otherwise, there would have been a "civil war" and our country destroyed.

Why is that necessary if they already have all the evidence?

If they have evidence, why would there be a civil war?

>Biden is a puppet president serving a puppet state. His inauguration was actually a military funeral.

How do any of this relate to anything relevant about your batshit claims about Obama?

Where is your evidence that Obamas kids are not his? Where is your evidence that he had three gay lovers? Where is your evidence that the military supposedly knew this about Obama? Where is your evidence that the military urged Trump to run?

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 15 days ago

If they have evidence, why would there be a civil war?

Once again; because It’s not enough to tell people, they have to be shown and they have to "experience it."

In the summer of 2020, a group called The Transition Integrity Project met with a goal of determining the very worst outcome of the upcoming presidential election. Their final assessment, printed in the Washington Post, said a Donald Trump victory would be the end of the country. Their message was clear: Don't dare vote for Trump.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

They wouldn't be "telling people". They'd be showing receipts. How good or bad the USA is getting under Biden wouldn't have any relevance to the charges you're referring to. They're right independently of how good or bad life was under Biden. This is a real weird unfalsifiable crafting of reality vibes you've created here, which ironically paints the military as a deep state (except operating in your favour).

And again: How does any of this relate to anything relevant about your batshit claims about Obama?

Where is your evidence that Obamas kids are not his? Where is your evidence that he had three gay lovers? Where is your evidence that the military supposedly knew this about Obama? Where is your evidence that the military urged Trump to run?

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 15 days ago

They'd be showing receipts.

And millions of people still reject the receipts, and that's why they have to experience things first-hand about the consequences of a rigged and stolen election.

Every horrible thing they claimed would happen under Trump has actually happened under Biden.

which ironically paints the military as a deep state.

Only a faction of it.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

>And millions of people still reject the receipts, and that's why they have to experience things first-hand about the consequences of a rigged and stolen election.

You haven't shown any receipts. There are no receipts to reject.

>Every horrible thing they claimed would happen under Trump has actually happened under Biden.

What things?

And again: How does any of this relate to anything relevant about your batshit claims about Obama?

Where is your evidence that Obamas kids are not his? Where is your evidence that he had three gay lovers? Where is your evidence that the military supposedly knew this about Obama? Where is your evidence that the military urged Trump to run?

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 13 days ago

OMG! That is nuclear-level piping hot tea! :O So you're saying the CIA and the Military don't see eye-to-eye, and the military was responsible for engineering the entire Trump situation? You don't suppose they helped him win, do you? Because that would make far more sense than the Russians doing it. The Russians wanted Hilary for president more, considering they'd already done shady business with her under the table during her time as Secretary of State.

I remember reading from a guy in the know on Quora, that the WEF had already had the election rigged in favor of Hilary Clinton, but the satellite they were attempting to use to change the vote counts in the electronic voting machines was somehow damaged and they couldn't get the signal through. They and their stooges in the Democrap party and the CIA also didn't count on just how angry the American people were at their govt. after Obama's 8-year-long shitshow.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

The more likely possibility, hear me out, is that tvfan is full of shit.

>I remember reading from a guy in the know on Quora,

Lmao. Epic sourcing there. Someone posting from Quora.

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 13 days ago

So you're saying the CIA and the Military don't see eye-to-eye

Not all of it, a faction of it is Deep State.

but the satellite they were attempting to use to change the vote counts in the electronic voting machines was somehow damaged and they couldn't get the signal through.

That was the military.

They prevented Hillary from getting those extra illegal votes. It was the only time the military intervened.

They didn’t prevent the 2020 rigging because it was a military sting operation.

One of Trump’s Executive Orders was in preparation for election interference (foreign or domestic).

Trump also had evidence of their 2018 rigging. But yes, Hillary’s election count was 100% rigged in her favor.

Trump knew that if the military showed the evidence after the 2020 election that there was a very high risk of civil unrest or a civil war.

In the summer of 2020, a group called The Transition Integrity Project met with a goal of determining the very worst outcome of the upcoming presidential election.

Their final assessment, printed in the Washington Post, said a Donald Trump victory would be the end of the country. Their message was clear: Don't dare vote for Trump.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 13 days ago

So what's in store for 2024? More unrest?

reply
formatting help
[–] tvfan (9227) 13 days ago

If Trump wins, yes, however, more of the country is awake to the the Biden regime.

The risk of a civil war is much lower than it was in 2020.

Trump wanted the country to experience it instead of just telling them.

If the military had shown the receipts, how many of the brainwashed anti-Trump idiots would have believed it or accepted it? ... 1%, 5%, 10%? That's not enough.

Now, they are literally experiencing all the awful things under Biden that they claimed and feared would happen under Trump.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 12 days ago

Yeah, it's not Trump who is the threat, far from it. He's not the one trying to censor everyone, or circumventing our freedoms through the internet.

Someone close to me had a vision that not only would Trump win the next election, but he would get support from the most unlikely places, and it would be the biggest cosmic joke to his enemies ever.

I don't know if what this person saw will happen. As far as I can tell, it'll be 50/50: either the election is rigged in favor of Biden again, or Trump really will win. Only time will tell. And sadly, it's not gonna change what's happening on tv or in entertainment, though it would be fun to watch those snotty, arrogant creeps in the media and Hollyweird cry, shit bricks, and have their heads explode again.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 13 days ago

Zero evidence for any of this horseshit.

reply
formatting help
[–] pastover (75) 16 days ago

who is this "we"? you have a group of hollywood producers in your pocket?

i suggest you stop whining, and instead take those producers, and get off your lazy ass and start creating your counterprogramming. but that would require competence

nothing has solidified in my mind the downfall of white people by having to witness the constant impotent whining on the internet

now we're at the "just shut them down forcibly" stage of cope
it's so sad. white people used to do great things (when they weren't busy destroying the world killing each other in world wars). nowadays it's hard to find even a competent one in the entertainment space

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 16 days ago

To be clear, there are plenty of white actors, producers, writers, directors and video game developers all over media. These knuckleheads don't represent white people.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12643) 15 days ago

While I agree that the woketards should not be in charge of our entertainment, trying to get rid of them is gonna be next to impossible. Why, do you ask? Because the people in charge of much of Hollywood, the people in power, are woke, and are kissing the asses of the World Economic Forum, who is among many groups pushing this BS. I mean, how exactly are you gonna get rid of them? You can't fumigate the place, because you'd kill good people who were hidden among the bad ones. You can't fire them because you're not in charge, and they'd just come right back.

So what can you do, realistically? Vote with your wallet. It's actually be working, but slowly. Several major movie studios are starting to have financial problems, including Disney and the BBC, who are responsible for this woke clown show you see before you. People aren't going to see their movies, people aren't buying their merchandise, people are cancelling their streaming subscriptions to Disney, they aren't watching Dr. Who at all, and they're going back to watching older material.

The studios can blame others for their own mistakes all they want, but sooner or later, at the end of the day, the corporations running the movie industry are gonna tell them, "This is not working, we're not earning money, pull the woke plug or we will do it for you."

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

You don't understand how the BBC works. The BBC is funded by the licence fee which is a conditional tax that everyone in the UK must pay if they watch live TV and/or watch the iPlayer. If less people are paying the licence fee, which may well be true as a proportion of the population - they're probably doing so because they primarily watch Netflix or Amazon or Disney etc. Which are services that you would accuse of offering 'woke' content. They aren't dropping out to get Daily Wire subscriptions.

The BBC and Disney are also not the only source for all of your woke grievances in modern media. And as I've outlined, there have been many financially successful purported woke TV series across all of them. Clearly people are not turning these services off.

Disney also just reported a streaming profit: https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/disney-q2-2024-earnings-streaming-profit-1235993204/#recipient_hashed=89b7c0a32da4398a9a0f173e6388b51e57009fa9f7dd3f779c22c823ad2453e1&recipient_salt=3a4408c64378e4d4e43513b81000fbc558e07a2f9ac349d50e15a4e0d26f71ed

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (990) 15 days ago

The irony is your complaining about people pushing their views and agenda but like every anti woke person you also have a massive agenda but just won't admit it. By making this statement about controlling and removing people your actually becoming the thing your against. It just reminds me of people who go on about the importance of free speech, those who believe in it until you say something they don't like.

For example there is a poster who likes to come on this board occasionally and comment about how bad of a companion Bill from series 10 is. The commenter claims it's too woke but has never watched that series, he just judged it from her trailer.

Now if he's never watched the series, how can he know how bad she is as a companion. Bill is black and also a lesbian, so the user has just decided this is too woke and never actually watched to see. If they had watched they would possibly see that he sexuality is part of her but not her main characteristic.

No one can ever define what woke actually is. I've seen some people for example say avatar 2 is very anti woke and then some say it is very woke.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

I admit that me and the Wokes have similar tactics (I have learned many of them from them). I see it simply as a war with opposing sides. They have their views and values that they want to push on me and I have my values that I want to push on them. And those views and values are diametrically opposed. It's as simple as that. We can't coexist. For example, they want every inch of space covered in Pride flags and I don't want to see any. So in order for one of us to win, one of us has to lose. Now back in the day, when you would occasionally see a pride flag, I didn't like it, but I would tolerate it because it was tolerable. Now having them plastered all over classroom walls and government buildings and businesses, it's no longer tolerable. So now I have to push my agenda of no pride flags anywhere. If it ever gets to the point where we only see pride flags on the occasional bumper, then I'll stop with my agenda because that is a compromise I"m willing to make. That's tolerable.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

Who has suggested that conservative filmmakers be publicly executed?

You have to live to see films and TV shows you don't like. You have to look at pride flags. You don't think that 'woke' filmmakers get to live.

There's nothing similar here at all.

reply
formatting help
[–] peter_t_2k3 (990) 15 days ago

Why not be in the middle then?

That's the way I am. Some of the stuff I've seen from what you'd call the left can go a bit too far but the same can be said by the right.

My point is that both sides can be just as bad. I think sometimes the message can be focused on too much for example and the story itself suffers.

reply
formatting help
[–] Skavau (10276) 15 days ago

You're negotiating with a guy who openly wants to slaughter all 'woke' filmmakers.

reply
formatting help
[–] curiousMInd101 (256) 15 days ago

The thing is they have pushed us so far left that the middle would still be far left. To me the middle is the way things were in 00's. By those standards I would be in the middle. Someone who supports gays as long as they don't push their lifestyle on the rest of us. They accepted those terms and everything was good. But after 2012 they just started pushing and pushing and pushing and now we have LGBTQ activists indoctrinating children in schools all over the country. Encouraging them to question their gender identity and their sexuality. These are not the terms we agreed to so now it's war. Now it's time to go back in the closet.

When I first watched this, I thought it was a parody. It turns out it's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNrPGQTqXDg

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga Discussion | Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes Discussion | The Fall Guy Discussion | IF Discussion | Challengers Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | Civil War Discussion | The Strangers: Chapter 1 Discussion | The Garfield Movie Discussion | Hit Man Discussion | Back to Black Discussion | I Saw the TV Glow Discussion | Tarot Discussion | In a Violent Nature Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit